Joseph chats with Anne Scheel. Anne is currently a postdoc at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam but will be starting as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Methodology and Statistics at Utrecht University in mid October. Anne is a meta-scientist who is interested in which research and publication practices can improve the reproducibility of the published literature, and how researchers can be encouraged to design more falsifiable and informative studies. She did her PhD at Eindhoven University of Technology, followed by a postdoc project at VU Amsterdam and CWTS Leiden. In this episode we chat about her recent publications in which she argues that most claims in the psychology literature are so critically underspecified that attempts to empirically evaluate them are doomed to failure. She also argues that researchers should focus more on non-confirmatory research activities to obtain the inputs necessary to make hypothesis tests informative.If you found this episode interesting at all, consider leaving us a good rating! It just takes a second but will allow us to reach more people and make them excited about psychology.LinksAnne’s papers:Scheel, A. M. (2022). Why most psychological research findings are not even wrong. Infant and Child Development, 31(1), e2295Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D. (2021). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 744-755Paper on strategic ambiguity: Frankenhuis, W., Panchanathan, K., & Smaldino, P. E. (2022). Strategic ambiguity in the social sciencesAnne’s Twitter @annemscheelAnne’s blog 100% CIJoseph’s Twitter @outa_josephPodcast Twitter @StanfordPsyPodLet us know what you thought of this episode, or of the podcast! :) stanfordpsychpodcast@gmail.com